More important: the UN legitimation of Palestine as a “non-member observer state”, member of UNESCO, maybe soon of UN under a GA Uniting for Peace formula, recognized by Sweden, soon by other Western states;

BDS helped finish South Africa’s apartheid regime and may bring down another, Israel[ii], by being mainly symbolic;

The key US pillar for Israel, AIPAC, is dwindling; Israel overplayed its cards, like bribing US law makers; irritation increasing;

The US campuses have turned against current Israeli policies, often under the leadership of US Jewish students;

The Jew among the US candidates for nomination/election[iii] will treat “Palestinians with respect and dignity”, others are for withdrawal; only Hillary is for politics as usual, against revolt in both parties;

The war is now inside Israel, but ritualistic genocidal bombing of Gaza–women, children, schools–was not used, will hurt Israel more[iv];

Palestine has more options than ever before to behave like the State it wants to be, not only focused on Israel, but on the whole world;

Geopolitically, the Islamic State (IS, not ISIS-ISIL) is now a major force, recreating empire and caliphate similar to EU and the Vatican;

Geopolitically, the West strengthens IS by killing instead of using UN-based defensive defense to protect 1967 Israel, and many others.

The synergies of these 12 factors may lead to the USA seeing Israel as a liability; a revolt-coup inside Israel; both; or other U-turns. Or worse, a devastating attack; big dirty bombs for instance.

There is no effectual peace movement in Israel; demoralized? Anti-war movements, women in black on both sides, but peace movements working for solutions? One person, Uri Avnery, compensates for much. And moderate Alon Ben-Meir; and TIKKUN, Rabbi Michael Lerner, in USA. Others are weak on concrete alternatives. Only a former Mossad chief wanted negotiations based on the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative API.

the 1973-74 establishment of a Palestinian authority, “in any span liberated, or Israel withdraws from”;

the 1988 Palestinian National Council Resolution to accept a Palestinian State based on 1967 borders;

the 1996 Cairo Summit: peace is the “Arab Strategic Option”;

the March 2002 Beirut Summit: API request for bilateral negotiations on relations to Palestine, Syria, Lebanon followed by normalization.

API was prefaced by a reference to the Qur’an 8:61, “when your antagonist inclines toward peace, do likewise”. Neglected. Israeli realists–looked at the API as–an Arab weakness–to push the Arabs to make further concessions. Palestine today is Gaza and some dots on Israeli territory; same as Palestine 1947 had some Jewish dots along the coast and in the Northeast, the “homeland”. Came Nakba. The horror.

Says the 1917 Balfour Declaration, in the second paragraph:

“it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil or religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status of Jews in any country“.

A remarkable foresight a century ago: the Jabotinsky wall and freedom to move; violence against Jewish communities all over.

Walid Salem: API is Out, with all these opportunities missed. In is “elevating Palestine, not in the UN only but also on the ground by creating Palestinian facts there in cooperation with the international committee”. This is what is now happening; see the 12 points above.

How about the Jewish side? Same as stereotypes, pre-judgments, about Jews: most loyal to Israel, too much power in the business world, international finance markets, only caring about their kind, too much control over global affairs, think they are better than others, too much control over the USA, over the global media, talk too much about the Holocaust, responsible for most wars (Rothschild?).

Pre-judgments? Or hypotheses, based on reality, to be tested? Many would fit Nazi-Germany under Hitler, as disgusting hypotheses about reality.

Netanyahu is part of reality. Do not see him as an extremist but as simply honest, telling the world that Judaism is a geopolitical statement obliging believers to fight for Eretz Israel, from the Nile to Euphrates; dismantling nine states by today’s map. That will not happen, in spite of current efforts. Look at Syria: the beneficiary may very well turn out to be IS; expanding province by province.

Look at the TIME Person of the Year for 1938: Adolf Hitler, for “better or worse” as Henry Luce, Time founder, put it. The first was Charles Lindbergh, a Hitler admirer. King Bibi, 28 May 2012, came close.

Look at Marion Gräfin Dönhoff 22 Sep 1948[vii], after Nakba and the killing of Count Folke Bernadotte, who liberated 20,000 Norwegians from German concentration camps and produced a plan for Israel-Palestine: “We can only hope that the shock that the death of Count Bernadotte is for the responsible in Israel’s government, at least for a moment, will make them reflect and understand how far they have come on that road that only a short while ago led another people into catastrophe”.

Then turn from the past to Martin Buber’s future: “yes, we Jews are chosen people, to show that we can live in peace with everybody“. That is where the future is located, not in the past: a UN 242 Israel with Arabs in Israel, and Jews in Arab countries, proving Buber right.

Israel, time has come for negotiations under UNGA auspices–for a realistic security through peace, not a realist peace through security! [viii]

NOTES:

[i]. Example: the UN votes over the “necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba. In 1992 59 Yes, 2 No (USA, Israel), the rest abstaining. Yes steadily increased to 191 in 2015 with the same 2 No, 0 abstaining. At most 2 others joined USA-Israel, like Marshall Islands, Palau, Micronesia abstaining; all 3 now recognizing Cuba. The process took time, but political insanity has its limitations; USA followed.

[ii]. Noam Chomsky, “On Israel-Palestine and BDS“, The Nation, 21/28 Jul 2014, points to a major difference: the Cubans were fighting South Africa, militarily and with soft, medical power; the Palestinians have nothing like that to help them.

[iii]. Roger Cohen refers to “Bernie’s Israel heresy”, INYT 19 Apr 2016, positively “because there is an emerging constituency particularly among young Americans for a different approach to Israel”. But Hillary Clinton’s white old age home is strong.

[iv]. Robert Fisk, “Israel-Gaza: No Victory for Israel Despite Weeks of Devastation”, The Independent, on english@other-news.info 29 Aug 2014.

[v]. Example: “Former Mossad chief: For the first time I fear for the future of Zionism”, Shabtal Shavit, 24 Nov 2014. And of course Yoshefat Harkabi from the 1980s, playing a major role.

This article originally appeared on Transcend Media Service (TMS) on 27 Jun 2016.

Anticopyright: Editorials and articles originated on TMS may be freely reprinted, disseminated, translated and used as background material, provided an acknowledgement and link to the source, TMS: Israel Right Now, with Shrinking Options, is included. Thank you.

64 Responses to “Israel Right Now, with Shrinking Options”

“Netanyahu is part of reality. Do not see him as an extremist but as simply honest, telling the world that Judaism is a geopolitical statement obliging believers to fight for Eretz Israel, from the Nile to Euphrates; dismantling nine states by today’s map.”

Oh dear. Another of the anti-semitic conspiracy lies that Galtung is so fond of…..

Indeed. But I’m sure Galtung himself will have an interest in assuring us that he didn’t lift a anti-semitic conspiracy theory out of thin air, and that he will either back his claim about Netanyahu up with hard evidence, or have integrity enough to issue an apology.

Netanyahu’s regime is Jabotinsky-revisionist. The N. family including father Benzion is old Jabotinsky nobility. Some former
PMs, notably Begin (and all Likud) and Sharon came from the same camp. Sharon and Netanyahu have killed the peace process and the 2-state-solution for good no later than 2006.

I will present some arguments for this starting with the fascism-definition of Michael Mann (“Fascists”) adding counter-arguments from Thomas G. Mitchell quoting Ilan Peleg (“Israel/Palestine and the Politics of a Two-State Solution”. Finally I discus some pragmatic considerations of using the “fascist” label.

MANN: DEFINITION OF FASCISM (summary from 2 pages)
(1) Nationalism. A deep populist commitment to an “organic” or “integral” nation. In German “völkisch” “Volkskörper”. Some ethnic, religious, “racial” and behavioral minorities cannot be part of this nation.
(2) Statism. Fascists worship state power.
(3) Transcendence of classes as one nation as project. The historic 5 fascist regimes however did tend to backtrack from their original project.
(4) Ethnic cleansing. Because opponents were seen as “enemies,” they were to be removed, and the nation cleansed of them. This was fascist aggression in action.
(5) Paramilitarism was both a key value and the key organizational form of fascism.
For Israel: (my interpretation)
(1) Zionism
(2) Zionist state, Eretz Israel
(3) Kibbutz ideology – vanishes as in all historic fascist regimes
(4) Typical for Jabotinsky revisionism. There IS a Palestinian people and it must be kept apart by a (yet symbolic) iron wall. Or “transported”.
(5) Paramilitaries in mandatory Palestine. Settlers today. More + more recent war veterans than in any of the 5 historic fascist European countries.

Thomas G. Mitchell quotes Ilan Peleg with a redundant Fascism definition but a set of characteristics setting NEO-revisionism apart from them:

PELEG: DEFINITION OF FASCISM (quote)
• An emphasis on power, particularly military power, as the sole instrument in international relations:
• a tendency to romanticize the nation:
• seeing the outside world as anti-Semitic and dedicated to destroying Israel:
• an effort to dehumanize the enemy;
• an emphasis on territorial expansion and national rights:
• the equation of internal dissent with treason:
• and a continuous disrespect for international law.3*
But Peleg argues that Neo-Revisionism is not fascism for a number of reasons:
• Neo-Revisionism does not demand a transfer of all power to the state:
• Neo-Revisionists are still committed to democracy and basic liberties:
• Neo-Revisionists do not glorify the past to the same degree as do fascists:
• Dreams of grandeur and glory are limited in Neo-Revisionism:
• Stylistic similarities with fascism are limited:
• Neo-Revisionism is a combination of secular realism and religious messianism and it looks to traditional values as a source of legitimacy.

I doubt that the latter points are sufficient for withdrawing the FASCISM diagnosis. The 5 historic European fascisms were as diverse.

Is using the “fascist” label healthy for conflict resolution?

YES:
– It corresponds with the facts, it explains the behavior of the regime towards the out-group and its alliances with the similar European populist radical right parties and the US-neocons.
– It takes away the blame from all ethnic/religious Jews.
– It puts the blame on the right; positioning oneself and the other on the left – right dimension is common use.
– It permits question like why did the US Israel lobby, the US-Neocons and the Netanyahu camp on the one hand promote the second Iraq war while the average US Jewish opinion was on the pacifist side of the US average?

NO:
– It defines and vilifies an out-group (but only a regime and a non-representative lobby)
– It puts an terrifying mask on them (but what is a mask in addition to 300 nuclear war heads on missiles able to reach you)

>Geopolitically, the Islamic State (IS, not ISIS-ISIL) is now a major force, >recreating empire and caliphate similar to EU and the Vatican

I do not understand the middle point – what is the difference IS/ISIS-ISIL?

>How about the Jewish side? (and the rest of the paragraph)

Who is holding these opinions about jews? My experience that nobody outside a small group of neo-nazi’s actually claim these things. But yet it is used as an strawman argument that “somebody” is arguing this.

>Netanyahu is part of reality. (and the rest of that paragraph as well)

Same as above. Who is actually arguing that Netanyahu is arguing that he wants a Israel to Eurphrates? This claim has been used by zionists to prove that the anti-zionists are in fact anti-semites so I’m a bit surprised to see it put forward as a statement about Netanyahu.

Help me understand: So if a neonazi says that the world is round and the sky is blue, I ought to distance myself from the statement or point made and dare not voice it … because of the ethically and politically unpalatable views of that particular person?

No, my point was that nobody outside the neo-nazi circles actually claim the stuff made under the “How about the Jewish side” section (because this is identical with the claims made in the Third Reich as argument for the persecuions of the jews).

And it may be that this _is_ the point JG is making – that this is indeed stereotypes.

Sick and tired of these accusations. Dear Prof. Galtung, please respond and clarify onceand for all if you find the time. As I teach with your material and people like Krogh in this tms forum are insisting that you must be some sort of antiamerican antisemite, please answer the VERY simple but clear question below.

To my mind, based on Stuart Hall and Albert Memmi’s work on racism, which I have been working with extensively;

An antisemite is a person who

[A] intimately hates jews in their own mind and heart (“can’t stand THEM as a group or as individuals” or -“don’t like THEM whatever they do as a group or as individuals”) and
[B] wishes to marginalize, discriminate, exclude, oppress, suppress and if possible eliminate jews.

A very simple question. I am not asking for any elaborations and long on the one hand but on the other hand answers. Keeping it straightforward: Does ANY aspect of [A] or [B] apply to any of your thinking and political mindset and policies?

Nothing applies to me, I am neither anti-Jewish nor anti-American. But I have great problems with the policies of Israel and the USA as states, and with some of the thinking that upholds these aggressive, colonialist, imperialist policies.

Then turn from the past to Martin Buber’s future: “yes, we Jews are chosen people, to show that we can live in peace with everybody“. That is where the future is located, not in the past: a UN 242 Israel with Arabs in Israel, and Jews in Arab countries, proving Buber right. Israel, time has come for negotiations under UNGA auspices–for a realistic security through peace, not a realist peace through security!

I think all of these points regarding what other people perceived as Galtung’s anti-semitism are interesting.

And given that, I would certainly expect Galtung to be able to either:

1) Prove his statement: “Netanyahu is part of reality. Do not see him as an extremist but as simply honest, telling the world that Judaism is a geopolitical statement obliging believers to fight for Eretz Israel, from the Nile to Euphrates; dismantling nine states by today’s map.”

or

2) Provide an explanation and an unconditional excuse for posting an obvious anti-semtic lie.

I think we should copy this discussion to other fora – this may certainly be something that would interest the public outside Transcend.

Interesting to see however, how these stack up against his use of neo-nazi sources for the “jews control the medie” conspiracy claim, his undocumented claim about jews controlling the academic, his very un-subtle attempt to link Israel/Mossad/Jews to Brevik’s hideous crimes, his use of the Protocols and latest his use of the old anti-semitic claim: “Netanyahu is part of reality. Do not see him as an extremist but as simply honest, telling the world that Judaism is a geopolitical statement obliging believers to fight for Eretz Israel, from the Nile to Euphrates; dismantling nine states by today’s map.”

John Faerseth is presently releasing his book ‘KonspiraNorge’. I have a pretty strong suspicion why Faerseth does what he does and what it’s really about. And it actually concerns Satanism (a variant thereof). I have known about Faerseth since 2004 when both he and self-professed Illuminati whistleblower Leo Zagami were active in the Gnostic congregation in Oslo where I also was active. The congregation was led by arts professor Jan Valentin Sæther and closed down its activities (at least as far as I know) ca 2009. Faerseth and Zagami were minimally active there, it seemed like they were mostly there to keep in touch with the social community surrounding the congregation. During that period the two were ostensibly hostile towards one another, but I didn’t know the background for this hostility then, I simply concluded in my own mind that the two of them behaved somewhat immaturely. Then, in 2006, Zagami began his career as an Illuminati defector, with comprehensive revelations of the connections between various occult groups and persons globally. Recently he has released a book trilogy in Italy about this, ‘Le Confessioni di un Illuminato’ where I as well as Faerseth are mentioned or discussed. A couple of years ago Faerseth tried to set up an interview with Zagami for a book project he was doing (presumably the book we now have). No interview was ever made though according to Zagami. I was also asked by Faerseth to be interviewed by him, which I rejected.

Presenting Leo Zagami’s history, and his stories, is a great and arduous task, and it is my belief that many people simply cannot meet the preconditions necessary to deal with it all. At the barest minimum one needs to have an interest in esoteric and occult societies as well as some knowledge about them beyond what it relayed in conspiracy theory forums. Now, Leo Zagami, being of Illuminati family background, arrived in Norway in 1999 on a mission from an esoteric umbrella group based in Monte Carlo with the assignment to investigate the Norwegian Black Metal community (which, incidentally, ‘Fri Tanke’ editor-in-chief Didrik Søderlind has co-authored a 1998 book about). In Norway Zagami makes connections with the esoteric organization Ordo Templi Orientis, an international organization with many splinter groups that was originally founded by Aleister Crowley, also known as “The Beast” or “the most evil man in the world”. These are magicians, not of the kind which make rabbits and bouquets of flowers disappear and then reappear in unexpected places, like the illusionist David Copperfield, but people who perform what they consider to be “real” magic (often spelled ‘magick’), i.e. to be able to effect supernatural changes to occur in reality through the application of special techniques, invocations of spirits, etc. There exist tons of such groups and magicians, and the O.T.O. is one among these, and Zagami and Faerseth belong among their ranks. To those who are completely unacquainted with such phenomena it should be pointed out that both these groups and the people in them are seemingly quite disparate, that is as long as one disregards a uniformity in overall worldview as a uniting factor. It is common for members to be in many different groups, even with conflicting agendas, and getting into and out of these groups. There is lots of intrigue and lots of pathos. Thus one can conclude it is all both very fluid and volatile. And there exists a number of people who specialize in chronicling (their versions, that is) this myriad of societies as best they can (or per the agenda to which they may be loyal). Leo Zagami is one such historian, and in my understanding he has a comprehensive and profound insight, both into the major historical trends but also of the detailed interactions between groups of the recent past, possibly also in the current.

In any case, according to Zagami, Faerseth has been secretary for the Norwegian O.T.O. group and has among other activities expelled Zagami from that group. This, according to Zagami, has been merely one among a number of initiatives from Faerseth and others in order to block his work, which basically was supposed to be the study of the Norwegian Black Metal community.

The way in which I choose to interpret what we are seeing at present, Søderlind and Faerseth are old acquaintances conducting defensive war with the objective of preventing investigations from being made into the Norwegian Satanist community where both (my supposition) have been and still are part. Their coordinated crusade against conspiracy theorists thus boils down to nothing more than a classical counter-intelligence operation (on par with the infamous COINTELPRO) in which they infiltrate an oblivious and defenseless (and as a former leader of the closely related Norwegian Heathen Society, I will add “innocent” and “naive”) activist community, that being the Norwegian Humanist Association (HEF), by pretending to be humanistic sceptics. From their then acquired platform they go on, with the coopted resources of HEF at their command, launching their crusade against the communities which appear in their digging and investigations to be getting close to the home base which they wish to remain concealed.

Furthermore, we can but assume that this concerns much more than simply a bunch of magicians wanting not to be disturbed in ther spiritual practice, but that it concerns the protecting of the connecting lines running between the O.T.O. and regular freemasonry in Norway and the hidden Norwegian power elite

That Faerseth’s book should become a bestseller seems doubtful, but then that isn’t the objective. Faerseth’s goal with publishing the book is first and foremost to consolidate his position as an “expert” on conspiracist communities, so that each time incidents emerge which are related to the traditional subjects of conspiracy theories, the first response of the media will be to contact Faerseth for an initial interpretation of the case at hand.

Satanism dear Krogh? A satanist is your best source for smearing Galtung? Your links led to this background information and many other far more disparaging information about the authors of the articles you linked. It seems that the Author behind those articles in “the humanist” is a practising… satanist.

Many throughout the Muslim world and beyond are asking this question: What are the real reasons behind the US invasion of Iraq and its wish to overthrow the governments of Syria and Iran?

For all their grandiose posturing, in truth, Iraq, Syria and Iran have never posed a direct threat to the US mainland. Put simply, they’re too far away from the neighbourhood. So why would the US be willing to expend so many human lives and so much treasury on changing the regimes of countries it doesn’t like?

Theories abound. At the top of the list is America’s quest for oil, a shrinking, non-renewable resource. But, in reality, the US gets very little of its oil from the Middle East and the Gulf. Most comes from South America and Africa.

Another theory revolves around the petrodollar monopoly, which both Iraq and Iran have sought to disband by trading their oil in Euros. There may be something in this one but it doesn’t explain why Syria is in the firing line.

The US says it wishes to export ‘democracy’ to the region but its reaction towards the Shiite government in Iraq, led by the Dawa Pasrty that has close ties with Iran, and the way that the democratically-elected new Hamas-led Palestinian government has been isolated, hardly lends credence to this. Democracy will not bring US-friendly governments, which is what the Bush administration really seeks.

A premise, which many in the Arab world believe, should also be dissected. Is the US manipulating and remoulding the area so that Israel can remain the only regional superpower in perpetuity?

This is not as fanciful as one might imagine on first glance. Read the following strangely prophetic segment from an article published in 1982 by the World Zionist Organisation’s publication Kivunim and penned by Oded Yinon, an Israeli journalist with links to the Israeli Foreign Ministry.

Yinon’s strategy was based on this premise. In order to survive Israel must become an imperial regional power and must also ensure the break-up of all Arab countries so that the region may be carved up into small ineffectual states unequipped to stand up to Israeli military might. Here’s what he had to say on Iraq:

“The dissolution of Syria and Iraq into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern frontIraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel’s targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run, it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel.

“An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and Lebanon.

“In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul and Shiite areas in the South will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north.”

Sound familiar?

Now let’s focus on the reality, 24 years on.

The eight-year long Iran-Iraq War that ended in 1988 was responsible for over a million casualties but did not result in Yinon’s desired break-up. Iraq still stood as a strong homogenous entity.

Iraq was, however, severely weakened in 1991 as a result of the Gulf War brought about by Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait. Still, the country remained unified.

It took the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq and the subsequent occupation to destabilize Iraq and split the country on sectarian lines. Indeed, its new constitution is drawn around a loose federation with partial autonomy for the northern Kurds and the southern Shiites, and the country is now rife with sectarian, religious and ethnic strife. Some say “civil war”.

Turning to Syria, until the March 2003 invasion of Iraq Syria under President Bashar Al-Assad enjoyed reasonably good relations with the West. We should also remember that Syria fought alongside the US-led allies during the Gulf War. Syria also voted, albeit reluctantly, for the UN resolution that oiled the invasion, and was a strong partner in the so-called ‘War on Terror’.

Then, lo and behold, Syria could do no right. Suddenly, it was accused to all kinds of ‘crimes’ from hiding Iraq’s mythical weapons of mass destruction, harbouring insurgents and terrorists, and allowing the free passage of fighters and arms into Iraq.

Heavy pressure was then put on to Damascus to end its de facto occupation of Lebanon following the assassination of the former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, and, now the Syrian government is being investigated by the UN, accused of involvement.

Today the US is actively engaged in weakening the Al-Assad government and is supporting opposition parties. If it is successful, experts predict that Syria, like Iraq, will fall victim to sectarianism and internecine conflict.

Lebanon, which had been recovering from a long civil war and an Israeli occupation, and was on the point of finding some semblance of unity, is also in danger of being destabilized with parties lining up into pro-Syrian and anti-Syrian confederations.

Yinon described the Arab-Muslim world as a temporary house of cards put together by foreigners and arbitrarily divided into states, all made up of combinations of minorities and ethnic groups which are hostile to one another.

He then goes on to bemoan Israel’s relinquishment of the Sinai to Egypt under the Camp David Peace Treaty due to that area’s reserves of oil, gas and other natural resources.

“Regaining the Sinai Peninsula is, therefore, a political priority, which is obstructed by Camp David” he writes. “And we will have to act in order to return the situation to the status quo which existed in Sinai prior to Sadat’s visit and the mistaken peace agreement signed with him in March 1979.”

Yinon then predicts that if Egypt is divided and torn apart, some other Arab countries will cease to exist in their present forms and a Christian Coptic state would be founded in Upper Egypt. Presently there are growing problems between Egypt’s Muslims and Copts, perceived by some hard line Egyptian Muslims as being more loyal to the US than their own country. This has resulted in open clashes often with resultant deaths.

Apart from Muslim-Copt divisions, Yinon was wrong in his calculations concerning Egypt. He believed Cairo would break the peace treaty with Israel giving the Israelis the opportunity to drive their tanks straight back into the Sinai and other coveted areas. However, the Egyptian government under the ever pragmatic President Hosni Mubarak has stuck to the letter of the treaty and has become an important US ally over the years.

Yinon’s solution to the ongoing Israel-Palestine problem was to herd the Palestinians across the Jordan River and label Jordan a Palestinian state.

He rejected the land for peace principle, saying, “It is not possible to go on living in this country in the present situation without separating the two nations, the Arabs to Jordan and the Jews to the areas west of the river.

Genuine co-existence and peace will reign over the land only when the Arabs understand that without Jewish rule between the Jordan and the sea they will have neither existence nor security – a nation of their own and security will be theirs only in Jordan.”

Yinon, and others of like mind must once again be disappointed. Jordan gave up any thoughts of Pan-Arabism long before the demise of King Hussein and his son King Abdullah is now America’s staunchest Arab ally in the region. With a two-thirds Palestinian majority in his country, Abdullah has chosen self-preservation by hanging on to US coattails.

The idea of packing 4.5 million Palestinians across the Jordan is no longer being openly touted, although this option was on the table in 2002 according to an article by Professor van Creveld in Britain’s Daily Telegraph.

A then Gallup poll showed that 44 per cent of Jewish Israelis favoured the expulsion of Palestinians across the River Jordan.

Professor Creveld believed Ariel Sharon favoured this plan too. Sharon was quoted in his article as emphasizing Jordan’s Palestinian majority and referring to it as the Palestinian state. “The inference that the Palestinians should go there is clear,” wrote Creveld.

If you feel the idea that the US would put itself on the line for the sake of Israel is far-fetched, then it is worth remembering the words of the assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who claimed in his book that the Israeli government was, in fact, responsible for the design of American policy in the Middle East after the 1967 ‘Six Day War’.

Yinon’s essay does not focus on Iran, but let’s look at comparatively recent statements coming out of Israel on this subject.

During a visit to Washington in November 2003 two years before the US government turned its fire on Iran – the Israeli Minister of Defence Shaul Mofaz told US officials that “under no circumstances would Israel be able to abide by nuclear weapons in Iranian possession.

During the same month, Meir Dagan, Director of the Mossad, told a parliamentary committee that Iran posed an “existential threat” to Israel, assuring members that Israel could deal with this threat.

Last year, the rhetoric out of Israel was ratcheted up with the Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom telling the press that “the idea that this tyranny of Iran will hold a nuclear bomb is a nightmare, not only for us but also for the whole world.”

Israel’s Prime Minister designate Ehud Olmert is continuing the tradition of hyping the Iran threat, assisted, it must be said, by fiery rhetoric coming out of Tehran’s reckless leader Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.

An article in the Daily Telegraph dated February 18 headed “America would back Israel attack on Iran” clearly indicates that it is Israel leading the charge against Iran.

The article quotes George W. Bush as saying,

“Clearly, if I was the leader of Israel and I’d listened to some of the statements by the Iranian ayatollahs that regarded the security of my country, I’d be concerned about Iran having a nuclear weapon as well. And in that Israel is our ally, and in that we’ve made a very strong commitment to support Israel, we will support Israel if her security is threatened.”

A year later and the US government is no longer portraying Iran’s purported nuclear ambitions as a threat to Israel, but a threat to the United States. In this way the case against Iran and the possible repercussions emanating from that, can be sold to the American people. Suddenly Israel’s concerns have become theirs. Interestingly, more than 55 per cent of the US public say they would back strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, according to a recent poll.

As the columnist Doug Ireland writes in his expose “The Real AIPAC Spy Ring Story It was all about Iran”,

“Bush’s slip-of-the-tongue that revealed his real intentions was front-page news in Le Monde and other European dailies but received little attention in the States-side major media.”

Justin Raimondo wrote in September last year,

“This case has received relatively little publicity in relation to its importance. It isn’t just the fact that, for the first time in recent memory, Israel’s powerful lobby has been humbled. What is going on here is the exposure of Israel’s underground army in the US covert legions of propagandists and outright spies, whose job it is to not only make the case for Israel but to bend American policy to suit Israel’s needs) and in the process, penetrate closely-held US secrets.”

Back to the question of whether the US is, indeed, waging wars on behalf of Israel. In short, we can’t be certain and we may never know since the Bush White House has sealed its private tapes and papers for 100 years.

There is one thing that we do know. Oded Yinon’s 1982 “Zionist Plan for the Middle East” is in large part taking shape. Is this pure coincidence? Was Yinon a gifted psychic? Perhaps! Alternatively, we in the West are victims of a long-held agenda not of our making and without doubt not in our interests.

LINDA S. HEARD is a British specialist writer on Middle Eastern affairs based in Cairo. She can be reached at sierra12th@yahoo.co.uk

Note: A version of this article first appeared in Al Shindagah magazine, a Dubai-based periodical.

1) His use of neo-nazi sources for the “jews control the medie” conspiracy claim?

2) His undocumented claim about jews controlling the academic?

3) His very un-subtle attempt to link Israel/Mossad/Jews to Brevik’s hideous crimes?

4) His use of the *content* of Protocols of the Elders of Zion to make a point?

5) and latest his use of the old anti-semitic claim: “Netanyahu is part of reality. Do not see him as an extremist but as simply honest, telling the world that Judaism is a geopolitical statement obliging believers to fight for Eretz Israel, from the Nile to Euphrates; dismantling nine states by today’s map.”

It makes me wonder what would a Satanist’s agenda be? Say on a regular day, when he gets up in the morning and drafts a satanist to-do-list based on the degree of satanist intellectualism. There must be some satanists better at it than others. And surely satanists come in theoretician versions and in practical more hands-on versions. For instance a satanist writer with a computer would act differently from a satanist child sacrifice ritual practitioner… of course no assumption is made here, that these two types of activities quite typical to the satanic subculture are mutually exclusive. Clearly, such a to-do-list would sound a lot like the things discussed in various yahoo-groups and amazon commentary sections in which such a satanist individual would give advice to novices and interested third parties.

Surely, one of the sure shot activities a satanist would likely enjoy to get involved in impulsively, would be to literally spread vile rot on any kind of positive, life enhancing view or approach to life in general and human interaction in particular.

So let us say, we have a Crowley scholar cum undercover Satanist cum OTO priest or what have you, going on about with his daily satanic thinking and vilification routine, and he then one day comes across a guy, who for ages has continuously been doing his daily peace stuff which consists of looking squarely at the roots of social evils – pun intended – such as the Irgun (to stay on the topic), discrimination and murderous racism like your ABBism in order to identify, explain, extract, extirpate, expell, expunge and yes: exorcise – pun intended – the very reason why the afore mentioned social evil is metastasizing and causing damage to start with… WHAT dear Kroghlodyte do you think, will the satanism that drives the actions of the aforementioned satanist have him do to this living, breathing, walking, writing, mediating “embodiment”! of an impediment to the free flow of social evils that is Prof. Galtung?

Mr. Kroghlodyte – it is my hope, that you will not take it against me, if I point out, that your very behavior is a suspicious illustration of the kind of behavior such a profile would exhibit.

This said,
keep trying.
Galtung has been too successful at training and raising thousands of global citizen too deeply concerned with human-centric development beyond race and other petty markers for you to be able to undo all that with whatever it is you’re trying to do. And: Don’t quit your day job. You suck at being an intellectual.

So you can’t read? Or worse even, you’re autistic and refuse to make sense of what Galtung has to say about your ridiculous attacks: “These libelous people never stop to ponder whether they would consider an oncologist/cancerologist to be a cancer for researching carcinoma.” See:https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CWsIoXzXIAA2ZB6.jpg In order to undo racism, you study among other things the writings of racists. You idiots. Or let me put it this way, you and Krogh seem to know where the exact AND ONE AND ONLY SOURCE of those figures that are being quoted comes from. HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT FIGURE? Because you read that source did you not? OH!!!!!! How come you read such drivel? So you too must be a right wing antisemite??? JEsus Christ give me a break you morrons.

A previous article here explained who is responsable for spreading “new antisemitism” accusations on the net:
” A key player in – and growing influence on – this campaign was the Israeli government, which pursued a new policy from the late 1980s through the newly established Monitoring Forum on Antisemitism. The policy aimed to establish Israeli hegemony over the monitoring and combating of antisemitism by Jewish groups worldwide. This was coordinated and mostly implemented by Mossad representatives working out of Israeli embassies.”https://www.transcend.org/tms/2015/10/the-new-antisemitism/

Galtung has much positive and solution oriented things to say about Israel’s hopefully bright and humane and nonviolent future in what is increasingly becoming a hostile region because of Israel’s current governement’s own murderous confusion of offensive and defensive measures. And yes. Palestinian militants escalating the violence aren’t much smarter. Can you hold these two thoughts in your thought without your head exploding Uri? Anyway: Again – Galtung is into violence-prevention! Hatred-prevention! Like Cancer-prevention! I can only refer you to this quote until you get it (but then again maybe it has too big words for you – I don’t know): “These libelous people never stop to ponder whether they would consider an oncologist/cancerologist to be a cancer for researching carcinoma.” See:https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CWsIoXzXIAA2ZB6.jpg

Being Jewish I might be more sensitive to matters like these, and you may argue that this on occation leads to “over-sensitivity”, but where the rest of the world recognize the infamous Protocols for what they are – a tool for fascist persecution – only extremists try to extract arguments from within their texts.

Have you read what Johan Galtung wrote? About this and the other things he write about jews? Have you read and understood the counterarguments?

Being jewish means you are human. Like everybody else. First and foremost.
Now any kind of hatred against any kind of human is disgusting and despicable. Period. Do you know who taught me that? Galtung. So read this note as a human first and foremost: “These libelous people never stop to ponder whether they would consider an oncologist/cancerologist to be a cancer for researching carcinoma.” See:https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CWsIoXzXIAA2ZB6.jpg

You can not understand what you are fighting if you do not study it. Do you understand that Uri?

Let me explain. I do not deny Johan Galtung’s points and valuable work, but nor can i close my eyes for the points where he deviates from that path. Yes, he declares himself to be anti-semite. And he may be. But some of his arguments and the sources he use are not.

Let me leave the word to one of our most prolific and hardest workers for peace between Israelies and Palstinians:

Galtung has much positive and solution oriented things to say about Israel’s hopefully bright and humane and nonviolent future in what is increasingly becoming a hostile region because of Israel’s current governement’s own murderous confusion of offensive and defensive measures. And yes. Palestinian militants escalating the violence aren’t much smarter. Can you hold these two thoughts in your thought without your head exploding Uri? Anyway: Again – Galtung is into violence-prevention! Hatred-prevention! Like Cancer-prevention! I can only refer you to this quote until you get it (but then again maybe it has too big words for you – I don’t know): “These libelous people never stop to ponder whether they would consider an oncologist/cancerologist to be a cancer for researching carcinoma.” See:https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CWsIoXzXIAA2ZB6.jpg

And again, Galtung, who happens to be the son of a concentration-camp survivor (his father was imprisoned in Grini for resisting the Nazis you morrons!!) is Anti-Violence and Anti-Anti-Semitic.

If Prof. Johann Galtung, the 76-year-old guru of peace advocates worldwide, were to be invited for a conversation with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert or with Defense Minister Ehud Barak, he would tell them that some day, when the United States is sick of Israel’s conflict with the Arabs, this country’s leaders will look for non-military solutions.

Galtung, who visited Israel (for the 36th time) last week, as a guest of the Young Israel Forum for Cooperation and SHATIL (the New Israel Fund’s empowerment and training center), had to make do with a short meeting with Deputy Prime Minister Haim Ramon. During that conversation, Galtung reiterated the idea he had previously mentioned in an interview with Haaretz: the establishment of a Middle Eastern community, a confederation between Israel and its five immediate neighbors: Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and Palestine.

“Only such a confederation will enable Israel to exist in secure boundaries and maintain its character,” said Galtung, who has written over 1,000 articles on mediation in the field of violence prevention and conflict escalation. “Before such a community is established,” continued Galtung, “it is worth learning from the European community model following World War II.”

Galtung has upgraded that model and proposes that alongside membership in the regional confederation, Israel also become part of the European Union, while its close neighbors would be part of a United Arab Community. Galtung’s creativity concerning cross-border arrangements knows no boundaries. Instead of transferring Arabs and evacuating settlements, he warmly recommends the Swiss model: Jewish cantons in Palestine and Arab cantons in Israel.

Creative solutions

Galtung has played a pivotal role in over 45 national and international disputes, including between North and South Korea and in the Danish crisis that followed the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed. He is the founder and director of TRANSCEND – A Peace and Development Network for Conflict Transformation by Peaceful Means, which now has professional members from over 80 countries worldwide.

According to Galtung, the Peace Park on the Peruvian-Ecuadorian border is an example of a durable and creative solution to conflict. “Compromise solutions usually leave both sides frustrated,” explains Galtung. “The Peace Park is a solution that meets the needs of both sides and creates a new reality. Over time the two partners turned the park into a free-trade zone and the governments joined civilian initiatives for developing the site.”

Galtung’s opinion of the Oslo Accords, on the other hand, which came into being in the city where Galtung founded TRANSCEND 48 years ago, is that it was a recipe for failure. “The Oslo process was not a true peace process, but rather a limited move between the Palestine Liberation Organization and [the Israeli] Labor [Party],” he says. “The moment Oslo left forces like the [Israeli] Likud [Party] and Hamas by the wayside, it was obvious that they would oppose the process and sabotage it.”

Galtung maintains that a true peace process requires the precise enumeration of all of the conflict’s relevant players, the identification of their goals and the pinpointing of ways to bridge their various desires. Even today, on the eve of the Peace Conference in Washington, none of this has been done. This is why Galtung does not believe the November meet will yield significant results.

Starting at the core

Galtung proposes three ways for approaching a solution to a conflict: beginning with the core – the hardest issue to resolve; beginning with the fringe issues and moving from the easy to the more difficult; or working simultaneously on both fronts. Had he been asked, Galtung would have recommended the first option – drafting a declaration of principles designed to offer solutions only for the core problems between Israel and the Palestinians. He would also have suggested parallel efforts via various other channels, specifically the Syrian channel.

Galtung also feels that the negotiation format could be improved. There should be a pre-negotiation stage in which the mediator plays a decisive role before the crucial players start to negotiate the main issues, he says. The relevant mediator meets one-on-one with each of the parties, holding a genuine dialogue with them before they jump full force into the power struggles of the negotiations themselves. This is the stage at which the parties’ needs are clarified and creative ideas emerge.

Galtung views Hamas as a rising force in Palestinian society, against the backdrop of the waning of the old elites, and warns that there is a possibility that the movement will take over the West Bank within five years. He wonders what movement will dominate Israeli society. The silver-haired mediator hopes it will be the young people. He prefers to converse with a minister’s young, ambitious aide than with the minister himself.

“The young people are more open ideologically,” says Galtung. “They want to offer innovative insights, different than those of their bosses, in order to blaze alternative trails for themselves.”

The main purpose of Galtung’s visit to Israel was to train young professionals. In a joint workshop for 30 Israelis and Palestinians, Galtung urged the participants not to put their fate in the hands of the existing political leaderships. He encouraged them to start formulating the future they want for themselves in the post-conflict era and to start creating and living the reality they want to see.

“Israel suffers from a great lack of peace research and study,” Galtung lamented. “You invest so much in settling and waging conflicts, but hardly deal with studies of the era of peace. You have to reinstill the faith in peace and show the public that it has potential and purpose. Just like the younger generation, the media, too, has a role to play here. More space should be allocated to the activities of the peace organizations, at the expense of the preoccupation with the violent aspects of international relations. The proper balance is not between reports of Israeli violence and Palestinian violence, but rather between violence and peace.”

I do not question Johan Galtungs resolve, nor his work for peace. But I DO question some of the methods, sources and arguments he use, as I strongly believe they in fact counter his other work.

If you replaced some of the claims he has made about “jews” with “muslims” many more would be horrified, but for some reason Johan Galtung find it ok to post preposterous and undocumented claims about jews with the argument that it is “permissible” to think aloud. And of course it is, but then don’t be surprised when the people you lash out at, also start to “think aloud”.

Are you surprised that people ract this way to Johan Galtung’s “thinking aloud”?

You people are shamelessly desperate, but you remind me of the drunkard looking for his key where the lightpost is, instead of looking for it where it might have been lost! Good luck fighting antisemitism this way.

Galtung worked with none other than Theodor Adorno on “PREVENTING THE NEXT RISE IN ANTISEMITISM”.

uhm….. no thanks. You can keep your smearing certificate. I don’t want it. I am sorry for what happened to your people in germany and eastern europe and spain and portugal. It hurts me deeply that our species does such things. It baffles me. It fills me with sympathy for Jews and Jewishness all over the planet. I wish none of it never happened to your people. I hope you can heal. Nonviolently. With empathy. Thanks for asking my opinion on that particular issue however harshly.

I just realized that I triggered your anger by writing “You people are shamelessly desperate”. I did NOT mean jews. At all. I actually meant “you people” as in URI and Krogh! So you see… your reaction was a textbook case of prepolarization.

Next time you argue others are “drunkards” just because they happen to disagree with you, you might consider what you expect to get in return. Just as Johan Galtung should have done.

Nevermind – I appreciate your empathy and hope for a new generation of peace minded people that can reach across the borders and walls. Without the kind of labels and “thinking aloud” about neither jews nor muslims that Johan Galtung and other one-siders engage in. That is the only way we will get peace.

Well dear Uri, the part of my thinking that you congratulate me for … I acquired from Galtung. By reading his books. By studying his insights. And as a fellow human being trying to overcome and teach how to overcome this violence around us, I personally have rarely read or studied anything as consistently instructive as Galtung’s work. There is a lot of good stuff out there on how to conduct peacebuilding. But as far as technicality and degree of insight into how peace processes truly work… Galtung is by far the world leading scholar on the issue.
And remember, he is the son of a Holocaust survivor.

Being son or daughter of a Holocaust survivor or victim is no guarantee for either views or deeds. Many extremists and criminals (not that I claim Johan Galtung is either) can claim that mantel.

And as I told you, I respect the parts of his thinking that is indeed constructive towards peace. But if I understand you this shall in itself absolve him for anything he say or do to the opposite? I just disagree.

If you want peace, working for peace and overcoming violence only happens when build on respect. Respect for the individual and respect for the faith and culture.

If I told a muslim that his kin and religion controlled the world media, was involved in all kinds of conspiracies and that we could learn about them from vehemently anti-muslim litterature, would you think that would help him and I understand each other and gain respect?

Yet that is exactly what Johan Galtung is doing with regard to jews. Do you think it helps? Do you understand? Do you even _try_ to understand? Or are you just standing with fingers in your ears, yelling “lalalalalal” and refuse to acknowledge _anything_ wrong with his statements?

Galtung is onto very very different things than these things you list above.
Nuances you are blind to. The question is whether that is a political-ideological choice and position or whether it is really just a lack of insight into what he is working on. The latter we can discuss. The first I am afraid draws the conclusion for this conversation before it even takes place – from your side that is.

And who are you to absolve anyone anyhow? What a strange approach to life you have

Dear Uri, I hope you have the sociological wherewithal to understand what follows.
In now way is this intended to hurt or be disrespectful. So much to my intentions in writing this. Intentions matter in all matters of human interaction.

“Hurtful” and “Disrespectful” are legitimate subjective positions individuals may voice and may rightfully express. However in social sciences, there is a distinction to be made between the INTERSUBJECTIVE FAIT SOCIAL and the SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE which is also a fait social in its own right. In short: You can’t actually infer from the fact that you are hurt, that it was intended to hurt.

What you are doing alas, is imputing an intention to a third party on the basis of the ascriptive interpretation of an obviously malicious individual. In this particular case, the intent you impute to Galtung could easily be verified by scanning the 160+ books and publications he has published in 60 years of a career as a public intellectual. Or specifically, by checking his published trackrecord on the matter at hand. Racism, discrimination, exclusion or maltreatment of human beings in no way falls into the remit of things Galtung ever publishes about.

Galtung obviously does not intend to insult anyone as his reflection inquires about intersubjective accuracy. He may be wrong on the data. That would be quite simple to prove. But only with data. The data he quotes or that anybody quotes must be verifiable. If the data is erroneous, then the data is erroneous. Data trumps data. But in this discourse, subjective hurts are being brought in by you and the Kroghmaster as counterarguments to purportedly erroneous data – which and here you are absolutely correct, is usually only used and referenced by people with rather disgusting political subjective preferences. Does the use of that data necessarily and sufficiently imply agreement with those subjective causes espoused by say neo-nazis or anti-semites? The answer is simply factually: NO! Here is where you are in error. It does not follow. I think this is called a non sequitur. Maybe you understand what that means. So the question really is, are those numbers accurate or not. And if they are, what do they tell us? More deeply, the question is: What other vantage points, OTHER; other than neo-nazi or anti-jewish vantage points can you imagine, which might be justifiably interested in that question? Justifyably meaning without intent to disparage, hurt or harm humans. Here is where in your diatribes you seem to lack the creativity to acknowledge the existence of motives other than those imbued in the object of inquiry: hatred.

Then also, another point is this strange issue with control of media. Control per se is not a negative thing. Why should it be? Control could be for the better of the users. This is worth discussing also. The core question being whether that statement is factual or just a figment of unsubstantiated projection.

Why do people like the Krogh, yourself and some others assume automatically, that claiming to have identified control over media, in the USA or global or elsewhere is by force equal to imputing nefarious ambitions to those who control – if control there is to start with? That this is a known discourse among neonazis and racists when they use antisemitic tropes is clear. For sure. But what about a sociological inquisitiveness which simply wishes to understand the nature, extent, effects and if at all factual, type and actorness of control. What has any of that got to do with antisemitic drivel?

You see… the world is ALSO populated by people who have a technical interest in social systems you know? There are also so called nerds who simply wish to understand complex patterns of social and ethnic interactions and how they correlate with power structures in this human world of ours. No need for; or interest in racism is required to be a nerd of that type “Uri”… you are barking up the wrong rabbit hole… only sociological inquiries dwell here where my paths crossed Galtungs. You should read the guy. Not lambast him based on vicious distortions disseminated by a scholar of Alister Crowley (to put it politely).

Thanks for a long explanation. Thoughtful and thought-provoking and with good points.

I will provide you with a longer answer later – being travelling in the UK right now makes my connectivity somewhat erratic, but I will try tonight.

I will just add one thing this morning. For me Johan Galtung’s views should be from his own mouth, and only those are of interest to me. Yet they are also the ones I address. I don’t know what the Alister Cowley reference means.

And the points I mainly cover here – the spill-over from the 2012 ruckus – are the ones he stated himself. At least if you belive that I quote him in error, or mis-attribute him, let me know.

I do not question your sociological analysis. Only the parts where I think you ignore the matter at hand.

But let me start with Mr Galtung himself. Yes, a prolific writer and intellectual. with strong and usually informed opinions. Also a human, and as all humans with a tendency to let emotions control analysis and opinion, rather than the other way around.

Mr Galtung doesn’t like the policies of Israel (and the US). No news here. Not should it be for anyone who has followed him the last 20-30-40 years. In a sense I don’t fault him for that. Truth be told there is ample reasons for that. Being an (Jewish) Israeli citizen I can understand and empathize with those that critize my country for its wrongdoings. But I also know that the truth might often be somewhat complicated and nuanced. The black-and-white images might ofte be misleadingly clear in their contrasts.

Knowing Mr Galtung’s bias, I therefore turn to other sources and opinions when I want a bigger and fuller picture. I don’t disregard his views, methods and analysis. To the contrary I often find them illuminating as well as source for futher research. But I certainly always look for second opinions when Israel (and the US) is covered.

However I find it important to stick to facts. As the saying goes – you are intitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. In in peace research, as in any other scientific pursuit. It is no coincidence that the trust- and peace-building initiatives in national re-building and healing are called truth commissions. Because data – the truth – is everything. So when Mr Galtung deviates from this, and present either half-truths or pure speculation as on part with obvious and verifiable truths (“data”), I will tend to be alarmed. Even more when these “factoids” trend towards anti-semtism. Just as I would when then trend towards anti-islamism, anti-arabism og any other angle on racism.

As an example: There is no truth in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. None. They are a fabrication with evil in mind. Looking for truths in that piece of murderous propaganda is not looking for truth at all. It only serves as perpetuating a glimt of validity they do not deserve. Mr Galtung – of all – should know that.

I do not imply that Mr Galtung is an anti-semite or a nazi. Or even an sympathiser. Not even close. But by lending a – even the most unwilling – hand to anti-semitic propaganda. Because this wil unavoidably be used by forces that _are_ either anti-semitic or worse. Racist David Duke was not late in picking up Mr Galtung’s points. And while I do not blame Galtung for Duke’s garbage, I do think that Mr Galtung should consider why and how he – be it inadvently – aids anti-semites.